Pages

Friday, April 5, 2013

Top 10 Movie Pet Peeves

We all have them: distractions that completely take us out
of a film. Those clichéd tendencies that cause our eyes to roll, our attitudes
to shift, our breath to exhale forcefully. We all have movie pet peeves that
annoy us to no end, no matter how common they may be.

But look, I’m not trying to be a hater here. Seriously. To
watch a movie (any movie) is to
suspend disbelief. Even documentaries (as “real” as some of them claim to be)
manipulate truth through editing, narration, and so on. I don’t expect any move
to be a perfect representation of real life, I’m just calmly point out a few flick
gimmicks that irritate me.

I actually enjoy most of the movies listed below. Some more
than others, but by and large, they’re quality films. This post isn’t meant to
bash the obvious, but rather, to draw attention to “faults” in the greats.
Presented in no discernible order…

Conducting a Secret
Meeting on Top of a Parking Garage

What are the chances that some office worker is staring out
of their window at the exact moment a group of crooked cops are going over, in
detail, their next illegal job? Slim to none. I get it, but it still pisses me
off. If I was going to partake in an illegal activity, I sure as shit wouldn’t talk
about it in the wide open, within eyesight of anyone who happens to be (or
wants to be…) looking. I’ll never understand the benefit of having movie
characters doing this. Isn’t it more eerie to shoot inside a parking garage, anyway?

I once had a roommate who loved the television show How I Met Your Mother. Loved it. So, as
a gesture of good faith, I watched a few old seasons with plans to view the new
season with him. Want to know why I hate it? Because it is all told in
flashback, from the point of view of one guy, even though 50 percent of the
scenes in the show don’t feature that guy. How exactly does one person know
everything about a situation, when they weren’t there?

How I Met Your Mother
is a lame example, but plenty of really good movies do this too. The first one
that comes to mind is Million Dollar Baby
(a film that I love), which is told from the perspective of a letter Morgan
Freeman is writing, even though Freeman’s character isn’t in many of the scenes
in the movie. How, for example, does Freeman’s character know about the
conversations Clint Eastwood has with his priest? Or are some of the scenes in
the movie actually not in the letter
Freeman was writing? I don’t get it.

Cinematic offenders: Million Dollar Baby, The
Shawshank Redemption, plenty other movies not narrated by Morgan Freeman

Opening and/or Closing
Bow-Wrapped Narration

I love An Education,
but its final scene, in which Carey Mulligan’s Jenny randomly tells the
audience how she met a new boy after going to college, is completely
unnecessary. Moreover, if the scene Jenny describes was actually filmed, it would’ve made for a lovely
ending to the film.

Cinematic offenders: An Education,Match Point, Spider-Man

Talking Loudly in a
Restaurant with No One Noticing

This is one I accepted long ago, but occasionally, a movie
sets a scene in a crowded restaurant in which a character is yelling so loudly
that I become distracted by the fact that people don’t notice. The best (or is worst…?) example I can think of is in
Keith Gordon’s mesmerizing little flick, Waking
the Dead. There’s a scene in which Billy Crudup’s character flips the fuck
out in a restaurant, and he Just. Keeps. Going. I mean… for a long time. And loud. Crudup’s acting is
solid throughout the scene, but the whole time, I was simply wondering when
someone else was going to ask him to keep it down.

Cinematic offenders: Waking the Dead, Hannah and
Her Sisters, nearly every movie that has a scene in a restaurant

Falling in Love After
Having Sex Once

If I had ranked this list, then two characters falling in
love after balling once would easily be number one. I’m not a particular fan of
the way movies glorify sex to begin with, but the fact that so many flicks
think it’s okay to assume a direct and immediate correlation between sex and
love is simply baffling. Look, I’m not saying it can’t happen, but, well, does it?

Cinematic offenders: Every romantic comedy ever made

Fights in Which
People Don’t Get Hurt

You may notice that I don’t mention guns in this post. And
that’s because I have no problem with how laughably guns are misused in pretty
much every film in which a gun is featured. Call it over saturation, call it
desensitization, but I’m used to it. Same goes for movie fights. They’re too
long, too rough and the repercussions are too tame. In real life, one solid,
bare knuckle punch to the temple can kill somebody, and a swift kick to the
head can render a man paralyzed for the rest of his life. But does that level
of realism make for good cinema? No, I suppose not.

So, my problem isn’t with the hyperbolic nature of movie
fights, but rather, with the audience’s disdain for movies that actually do depict violence accurately. A perfect
example of this can be found in Robert Duvall’s The Apostle. Early in the film, Duvall hits his wife’s lover in the
head with a small baseball bat. The hit puts the man in a coma, and he dies
some time later. A few years ago, I was discussing this film with someone who
admittedly did not like it. I asked why, and he said it was unrealistic that
one hit with a baseball bat could kill you. “Are you kidding me?” I asked him.
“Shit could kill you easily, within
seconds.”

And what I realized is, because we’re raised on movies in
which characters beat each other senseless and then carry on with their days,
many of us assume that real violence
is fake violence. No, not at all.

Cinematic offenders: Every action film ever made,
and/or most any film with a fight scene

Empty Beer Bottles on
the Bar

I’ve enjoyed many a beer at many a bar, and never has a
waitress failed to clear my empty bottles. Letting empty bottles (or any empty
alcoholic drink, for that matter) sit on top of a bar never happens. But I get
it, the director wants to convey that the character is drunk. Okay, but Billy Wilder
did that with martini olives. In 1960. So maybe it’s time to get more
creative…?

I dig on gimmicky narratives. Non-linear, shifting,
hyperlink – whatever you want to call it, I can vibe with a movie that doesn’t
go in order. Or chooses to show the same thing from several different
perspectives. What I can’t forgive is when, midway through the film, a movie completely
abandons its own narrative, and not-so-subtly asks us to “forget” its structure
leading up to that point. One tragic example is Doug Liman’s terrific Go, which is essentially three different
stories of how an interconnected group of people spend a few days around
Christmas. First, we see things from Sarah Polley’s point of view. Then Desmond
Askew’s. Then, finally Scott Wolf and Jay Mohr’s. That should be it, but once
the Wolf/Mohr segment is over, the movie just starts cutting to anyone it
wants, leaving its Pulp Fiction style
of story telling (which Liman said he blatantly borrowed) in the dark. Huh?

Cinematic offenders: Go, Vantage Point

Curse Words That are Dubbed
to Secure a PG-13 Rating

David Fincher is a digital effects genius. There’s no
debating that. Why then is it so obvious that Cameron Winklevoss telling his
brother, “Let’s gut the friggin’ nerd,” was shot and recorded as “Let’s gut the
fuckin’ nerd”? Fincher shoots an insane number of takes, so I find it
implausible that he didn’t have enough coverage to cut away from that specific
delivery. If it was just the audio, I wouldn’t have noticed, but the fact that
we can see the character giving the line delivery… it’s just silly.

Speaking of bad dubbing, it really burns my ass when movies
implore obvious instances of ADR. ADR (or additional dialogue recording) is
when an actor rerecords a line of dialogue in post-production, to improve the
quality of the delivery. Maybe their initial line was ruined by noisy natural
sound, maybe the mic cut off for a split second – no matter the reason, ADR is
done on most all movies, with the hope that the viewer can’t hear the
difference.

Granted, you have to have a rather trained ear for bad ADR,
but sometimes it’s so obvious that most anyone can spot it. You can hear it
when Dennis Hopper is telling Keanu Reeves to “Get back real fast,” in Speed, or the exchange after Jay calls
TS a “mad, fat chick killer” in Mallrats,
and on and on.

72 comments:

Interesting list. I sort of agree on all of these, but yes, I mostly suspend my disbelief in such cases.

For the narrator thing, I try and think that maybe he/she was informed later, but this particular thing really irritated me in something like A Curious Case of Benjamin Button when he is talking about all the things that led to Daisy's accident. How the fuck did he know? And it was especially glaring because Fincher made that scene so perfect otherwise.

I don't like it when people randomly fall in love, period. For eg. Sound of Music. I have never understood at what point they fell in love and so deeply too. People who seem to have no connection at one point and are head over heels the next just piss me off in movies.

The all-knowing narrator: that seems to be the most common argument, that the narrator was informed later of EVERYTHING, which is just silly to me, but, again... suspended disbelief. Completely agree about Benjamin Button's use of this.

Falling in love so deeply so quickly is something I don't get either. I recall disliking Cold Mountain for that exact reason. One kiss... and they're lovers for life? Huh?

Ohh Yes. We all certainly have it. Character Narration you talked about often drives me mad. But my biggest pet peeve is with the people following. I assume that if you are following someone, more often than not you don't want the person you are following to know he is been followed? Is that unrealistic? I think not. So walking 2 feet behind him or driving bumper to bumper doesn't fricking serve your purpose. Just Keep the safe distance. Is it too much to ask?

Ha, that is a a great choice. That really irks me as well. In a similar vein, I was very close to including how easily people sneak up on other people (particularly in horror movies), and how chasers always seem to know which way the chased goes in a scene. All very annoying.

I'm in two minds about the following trope here - I agree that it's often misused, but it can be used really effectively to create a sense of intimacy between two people (even if they're never met). "Vertigo" is a classic example of this - when Scottie is shadowing "Madeleine," he's following far too closely for her realistically not to notice. But that establishes a bond between the two that captures his obsession with her far better than words ever could.

Of course, plenty of films just do it poorly. But I think it can be unrealistic and very effective at the same time.

Your Vertigo pick is a perfect example of how there are most definitely exceptions to every movie pet peeve out there. In fact, I was thinking just yesterday how perfectly Rust and Bone uses random, closing narration. I often hate when films do that, but if done right, it really can work. Same thing here.

Ha! Great choices here, I too agree with many of them. Specifically the meetings on the parking garage, empty bottles and bad ADR. I appreciate ADR, but I also hate when it's painfully obvious. Take Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen for example, there's a scene where Sam makes a swing flu joke. (The swine flu overreaction happened a few months before Transformers was in theaters) So it was an obvious add-in to be relevant with what was currently happening. That annoyed me.

Ooohhh that is an excellent example of lame ADR as well. I honestly didn't even think about that. On one side, I suppose I can appreciate a director trying to make his or her film as relevant as possible. But on the flip, if it's distracting, then it's distracting.

Great list! Haven't thought specifically about a few of these, but they totally make sense like the parking garage one. Another bar related pet peeve is when some orders a beer. You can't just say "I'd like a beer" or the bartender would likely give you the fiercest scowl ever. Maybe using a specific beer might be annoying too for obvious product placement, but it gets me every time.

Another annoying thing is when people look so perfect in situations where they would look rugged. Emma Stone's makeup is perfect throughout Zombieland. I mean I guess she could still put that much time into it, but it didn't really make much sense why she'd bother. That pretty much happens in any movie where people should look worse considering the circumstance.

Your makeup pick is spot on. I mean, really, what's the harm in letting yourself look natural given the circumstances? Kinda like hair not being wet when a woman gets out of the shower in movies. Silly.

The beers stacking up thing never bothers for the same reason - I've been in plenty of joints where you can accumulate dozens of empties without the glassie touching them. Admittedly, not *on the bar,* but it doesn't bother me at all in film - partly because I assume it's intentionally supposed to show that the venue is really shitty (in "Wild at Heart," at least, it's fitting).

Ha, it's all good. I LOVE Wild at Heart, and I know exactly what Lynch was doing there, so fair enough. Still kinda irks me. And man, if you've been in a bar that lets empties stack up like that, then you've definitely seen something I haven't haha. And I've been in some real shitholes.

I really agree with this list, especially Abandoning Unique Narratives. This was my biggest problem with Silver Linings Playbook. David Russell stripped the book of it's unique voice by changing the plot too much. Even if he didn't do that, Bradley Cooper's character loses his unique point of view halfway and it becomes The Jennifer Lawrence Show. :/

You're probably going for generalization here, but Classic Hollywood films wouldn't really fit into the 'have sex then fall in love ploy' category. Definitely most recent romcoms would though! Romantic Comedies have come down to either relationships based on good chemistry (but ALL hints of sex are PG-rated) or two people are "in love" because they canoodled. It's really frustrating!!

This is a good list as narration is something I'm mixed on. On the one hand, it can be good. And then it can be bad. Sometimes, I feel like the narration is only needed if it doesn't give away anything. One example where I felt narration didn't work was in Vicky Cristina Barcelona as it kind of took me out of the film as well as the fact that I found the narration to be a bit bland.

I agree that narration is hit or miss as well. And it's funny, because many of my favorite films are narrated, including Taxi Driver. But that's stream of conscious narration, not scene-by-scene narration, you know? If you've ever seen an episode of, say, Sex and the City... that is the prototype of god awful narration; describing the exact action on the screen as we're seeing it. So lame.

Sex and the City is a show about a woman who writes a weekly column for a newspaper. The voice-overs are what she eventually writes about what we get to see happening to her and her friends. The entire series is based on that.

Yes, I agree. But I've never understood the benefit of having a narrator describe exactly what is happening on screen, while it is happening. If your vision was physically impaired, then I can see why that sort of narration would be helpful.

This list is so good. I agree with the God narration one and the sex one the most. And as another poster said, the makeup thing. Like a woman wakes up in the morning with no discernable facial swelling, pillow marks and makeup still intact. Bitch please lol.I cannot think of any off the top of my head, but once I do I'll definitely add some additional pet peeves here.

Thanks man! Perfect makeup in the morning is so silly. It's funny, when we filmed Earrings, the morning-after scene where Chlo wakes up in the hotel room - well Catherine came into the hotel room and just started smearing makeup all of the pillows and her face. I was like, "What the hell are you doing?" and she goes, "This is how it would be."

I don't know what it is but as much as I agree the whole knowledgeable narration where one character knows everything is silly, I always buy it. I guess my suspension of disbelief starts there.

I don't really have anything that annoys me other than in romantic comedies or whatever this genre is nowadays everyone always have some cool job. They are paid a lot of money, never seem to work and all their friends have similar cool jobs that never seem to require any of their time either. That's so stupid.

I usually buy that narration too, which is so weird. It typically isn't until after the fact that I think, "No, wait, that... doesn't work."

Holy shit, had I thought of the job one, that DEFINITELY would've made the cut here. Every romcom has their characters working these carefree jobs, making shit loads of money, living in giant city lofts. I hate that.

And I know you detest Girls, but the fact that it doesn't show its characters living like that is one of the main things that initially drew me to it.

As an official Crudup Fanatic I feel compelled to defend that Waking the Dead scene, partially because I love that movie and partially because I love that scene and partially because I love Crudup in it. I mean, if you saw a dude going off the deep end like that in a public place I think you would be more likely to just sit back in shock and/or disbelief rather than feel the need - or, more likely, be able - to do anything about it. Just ride it out and pretend that nothing is happening. (It's possible, though, I'm just lying to myself.)

My biggest pet peeve has always been the usage of air ducts to assist plot. Which is why my favorite scene in The Brothers Bloom is when Rachel Weisz is crawling around in the air ducts. That was such a brilliant mocking of the air duct escape.

I thought you might come to its defense! And hey man, fair enough. I think I've told you this before, but I really like that movie, and Crudup in it. That scene just always throws me.

Would I approach a guy in a restaurant if he was flipping out like that? Nah. probably not. But I'd definitely look at him. And I'd probably leave as well. I'm not saying the director is at fault for not showing cutaways of extras staring with concern... it's just my personal taste, you know?

Your air ducts pet peeves is priceless. Hadn't even thought of that, but it's so damn silly.

Thanks dude! Hiding out of frame is legit absurd. I love when characters are in the middle of a giant, empty field, and they're turning around in circles, looking for their attacker. Turning, turning, turning, the BAM! there's the killer. Come on now.

And I agree with Steph, great call on the speeding car thing. That's just... not the way it goes.

Awesome list! Some of these things I wholeheartedly agree with. Others (like the beer bottles) I don't even notice.

The "two characters falling in love after balling once" thing has been a pet peeve of mine for a very long time. I have nothing against casual sex being portrayed in movies, if it fits the story, but I think it should be done realistically. And it wouldn't hurt if the characters sometimes took a moment to mention contraception before ripping each others' clothes off. Now that I'm a parent and an educator, naturally that stuff irks me even more.

That said, I do know one person who has been married for over 20 years to a man she hooked up with right after meeting in a bar. There's always the exception that makes the rule.

Thanks Steph! I'm trying to discuss this tactfully... basically, yes, I agree with everything you said about casual sex (both in life and how it is depicted in film) and the lack of discussion about contraception. But, hell, I just think sex is treated ridiculously in most movies. So oh well.

There IS always an exception, that is very very true. That's a nice story about your friend :)

Agreed. This is part of the larger problem of how absurdly sexuality and relationships are depicted in movies. Even given the fact that we sometimes go to the movies to suspend disbelief, it's frustrating.

I guess one of my peeves is the overuse of the loquacious killer, especially in action movies. If the plot requires someone to be shot and killed, it just happens. Boom. The killer doesn't hesitate. But if a hero needs to be rescued at the final moment, the would-be killer has a need to chat incessantly, and maybe proffer a detailed confession of his previous crimes, before doing the deed. They flog the hell out of that plot device in my beloved mystery novels too. *Sigh.* Oh well.

That is a really bad one, yeah. Another one I'm unfortunately desensitized to. I especially love when the director thinks that is a good time for the villain to divulge a ton of plot exposition. How convenient!

Fantastic list! Though I usually let them go, I agree with all of these. The character narration is one I'd never considered, but it seems like a glaring error when you think about it.

My biggest pet peeve is probably love at first sight. I mean, every film can't be Romeo and Juliet, right? A recent example that really bothers me (even though I love the film) is when Eddie Redmayne's character falls instantly in love with Amanda Seyfried's character in Les Miserables. Seriously?

Needed a laugh when the day this list was posted so thank you Alex, out the ones here I would say that the is the nobody getting hurt or showing the scarring or bruising in a fight is the one I detest the most. To go further characters that get shot anywhere but in heart's area are seemingly just fine a limp at most, not crippling you if not kill you outright. One of my favorite things about Bullit is that McQueen's partner is shot the leg... and is out of commission for the rest of the movie almost dying. That was in 1968, every action movie made since then has only gotten crazier with the wounds that people withstand. I could go on with explosions, but more of the same. Computers that can do EVERYTHING seem to be a left-over from the 90's. A lot of misunderstandings about arrests were also generated by movies, like they don't HAVE to read you the Miranda warning, only if you're going to be interrogated further at the station. Or they don't have to grant you a phone call, sure it's a courtesy that's normally given to inform your attorney but if you're being like the Joker in the Dark Knight I'm pretty sure they're not obliged to give you the phone. Good list.

That is a GREAT example of why Bullit is so effective. Really good call there. I dig that level of realism.

Also very good points about the Miranda rights and the phone call. I guess someone along the way thought it'd be compelling to have a movie character bitch and moan about making their one phone call. So weird.

One of my biggest pet peeves is lack of continuity in editing during eating/drinking. If there's food on the table and it's not consistent, but I'm not expecting to look at it, well no worries - I don't need perfection in filmmaking.

But when De Niro grabs a beer near the start of "Deer Hunter," takes a gulp and then in the very next shot it looks completely different...it takes me out of the film. When the dialogue in "Killing Them Softly" between Gandolfini and Pitt at the bar focuses heavily on drinks and they're *not consistent* from shot to shot...it takes me out of the film.

It seems to be something that I only notice in bars/restaurants. In "The Departed," when Farmiga and DiCaprio are chatting, it's so obvious that the body language and position are changing from shot-to-shot, and it really affects my enjoyment of what is otherwise a great scene. And yet, put these kind of errors into action sequence and I wouldn't even notice.

Oh man, hating on the continuity gaffs of eating and drinking is something I retired long ago, only because I used to go crazy letting that irk me. I agree, it's in so many movies (and so many greats movies as well). I do take more issue with inconsistent posture and position than food. Really distracting when characters are in one place, then another, then back. Blah.

i thought this was going to be about people discussing movies while walking down the theatre hallway and spoiling it for people, per our conversation the other day.

another thing that's always criminally done...sports. blatantly ignoring rules is one thing. but one thing that's always driven me nuts is when it shows the clock ticking...5....4...3 then the scene plays out for like 20 seconds..comes back to the clock...2...1...

a few that i just thought of yesterday:1. people pumping themselves out loud in front of a mirror. 2. when a movie "takes place" in france but everyone speaks english. i understand this isn't always practical, but it drives me nuts. 3. people splashing water on their face in a bathroom to calm down.

1. I don't like that either. Definitely never done that myself, but maybe some people actually do...?2. Not just France, but anywhere really. This is one that has been beaten into us since the dawn of film, so I guess I've come to terms with it. Shame though when movies like Inglourious Basterds get criticized for actually having its characters speaking in their native language(s).3. Ha, yes! Never happens.

Just thought of another one! When the main character comes to a huge realization about one plot line while talking to another character about something completely unrelated. The first Raimi/Maquire Spider-Man was guilty of that (plus countless other films) and the show House abused it on a *weekly* basis.

When I saw this topic I said to myself, "this is going to get a lot of comments." I was right.

Your bit about people falling in love so quickly triggered something with me. I noted long ago that that was unrealistic, but like sound effects in space I just go with it since it is so common across so many movies.

No, what gets me is the aftermath of the sex scenes. How many times in real life do people get done having sex and then roll out of bed already wearing underwear? Or if they stay in bed where do they buy those L-shaped bedsheets that cover the man to his waist, but cover the woman all the way to her neck? Or if the person is naked under the sheets, who carefully swings their legs over the side, reaches down for the underwear, carefully pulls them up while lifting themselves the smallest millimeter off the bed, and only then stands up?

All of these things are there because the actor/actress has refused to do nudity. These scenes always take me out of the movie not just because they are so unrealisitic, but also because I always think to myself, "Why didn't they just hire someone who would do nudity?" or "Why bother having the scene at all if it's just going to be a joke?"

You could do an entire dissertation on movies that have strippers who never actually strip (Closer, Sin City, etc.) "Oh I didn't realize *nudity* was required. I'm going to have to call my agent." Can you imagine hiring an actor to play some badass criminal only to later find out he doesn't believe in gun violence and is refusing to be shown holding or firing a gun?

Damn man, this comment had me LAUGHING. I mean... loud. So very true. Everything you said = spot on.

You basically reconfirmed how laughably prude the majority of most films are concerning sex. One could make a Movie Sex Pet Peeve list quite easily, and be entirely accurate throughout. I've more or less given up on caring, which is a shame. If the material warrants sex (or nudity), then the actor should deliver.

When someone has someone else covered with a gun and, after a couple of minutes, racks the gun to make a point. Nothing comes out of the chamber, which indicates this idiot has been covering the guy with an unloaded gun. I've seen this happen 3 times with the same gun in the "same scene".

Don't know if you'll read this, but I discovered your site after turning of Room 237 and googled Room 237 bullshit, have been reading ever since.

Ontopic I can't stand the "mostly" killer/victim chases where the victim ran away long before the killer pursues them, but always knows where they are heading and catches up with them walking. Or the car chases where they always catch up, no matter the headstart and when they catch up it suddenly turns into an even race...?

I was also thinking of the elevator escapes, where most of the time the elevator is always there to jump right in and then the door closes JUST in time to get away.

I could probably go on for hours hahaha.

Well maybe it's just that watching too many movies makes you notice this, if that's part of the trade then so be it I guess ;-)

I'm sorry if my grammar isn't correct all the time, English isn't my native language, learnt it from the movies (and school ofcourse)

I have a huge pet peeve with the fantasy genre that I literally see ALL THE TIME. I'm not sure how to sum it up in general, but one example (the most painful one) is when a vampire/demon/evil entity is killed and a giant ray of life shoots out of them. Another example is when someone is possessed by something and their eyes are suddenly black or red or plain white. Yet another example is when a witch uses her magical powers and there's a whooshing noise that accompanies it. I just get so irritated with those.

Another pet peeve I have is with mockumentary sitcoms like Modern Family or Parks and Recreations. A character is in public or characters are having a private moment and no one notices the camera except for one of the protagonists when it's time to humorously look straight into it after an embarassing situation.

Oh christ, your peeve about those specific shows is spot on. That format is so dodgy for so many reasons. I grow tired of that gimmick after a while, which is why I think it works better in a 2 hour film, as opposed to a 100 episode sitcom.

The other day, my Drama class was watching a film, and it brought up another pet peeve to mind: Shakespeare with an updated setting and the original dialogue. I'm always shocked to hear I'm apparently the only person who has a problem with that. Every time I see a movie like that, I just want to shout out at the screen "WHY THE **** ARE YOU TALKING LIKE THAT?!?!" I mean, why bother updating one thing and not the other?

Another peeve I have, a MAJOR one, is kind of hard for me to describe. Like, you ever watch a movie, and get the feeling that the actor's motions aren't quite right? Like they're really choppy, almost as though instead of live action, you're watching cut out animation? Like I said, it's kind of hard to explain, and I have no idea how it gets like that. It's all over 25th Hour (I'm sorry, but I hate that movie, for several reasons, including this one). If you want an example, watch this scene, and I think you might be able to tell what I'm talking about within the first second:

The Shakespeare thing is definitely not for me either. I have trouble with his original text, so then to see it in a contemporary setting... can't do it. I made it through three minutes of Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing. I'm sure it's a swell movie, but I just can't.

The second thing you're talking about is when a film is shot at an increased frame rate (and thereby, an increased shutter speed). Movies are shot at 24 frames per second, so scenes like that are typically shot at 120 frames per second.

To achieve slow motion, you shoot film at 120 fps (or higher), then slow it down to 24 fps in editing. So, essentially, those moments in 25th Hour were shot the same way you'd achieve slow motion, only the scenes weren't slowed down in post. The technique has been around for years, but Saving Private Ryan popularized it (the entire opening beach scene was shot that way), and today, you can’t find an action film that doesn’t contain at least a few scenes that were shot at an increased frame rate. We’re used to seeing it in the action genre, but when it appears in a drama like 25th Hour, yeah, it can be jarring, which I think was Lee’s precise intent. I get why it doesn’t work for you (and it doesn’t for me in a lot of films), but I think Lee and Rodrigo Prieto used it to great effect in 25th Hour. But, you know, not for everyone.

Wow. Thank you so much for that bit of filmmaking information. I honestly didn't know that, and it's been driving me crazy. Thank you for that. Y'know, I wish more action scenes would be just shot straight in a movie. Like, just a stationary camera, pointing at the action. It's used really well in Kill Bill, and Christopher Nolan does okay with it sometimes, too.

And with 25th Hour, it's not just the frame rate, but I also thought the editing was a bit much, I couldn't see anything through the highly saturated colors (hey, more peeves). It all felt like a bit much. I get what Lee was going for, but it just wasn't for me.

My pleasure. I really miss controlled action scenes as well. The Bourne films pretty much ruined it (for better or worse - I really dig the Greengrass ones). But that sense of control was why I loved Soderbergh's Haywire. I mean, the camera barely moves!

I just saw th peeve that i am about to mention and was SO annoyed by it...perhaps irrationally so lol, that i actually did a google search to see if anyone else felt this way...haha...which led me here..."dead" people breathing...in other words...the character is supposed to be dead and the actor's chest and or abdomen or eyes are moving. This. Annoys. me. to ...well, to death...lol. STOP F%ing breathing while they are shooting the scene. And i am an actor..yeah...it could last awhile...DEAL with it and STOP BREATHING BLINKING MOVING, lol...i told you it was a pet peeve. It's called "acting" for a reason...now act dead! I just saw it in a twilight zone episode...and i am talking about 10 or 15 second clips...and i doubt they had more than a few takes back then...I think it irks me so much because as an actor you have to do sh$t all the time that is challenging...that is your job...ok...i am done now...lol...i just go back and watch the Big Chill...i wonder if Costner moved...